Explaining the Allocation of Environmental Aid Chris Marcoux The College of William and Mary Christian Peratsakis University of Texas Augmenting Available Data Improving the breadth of coverage ID: 651354
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Do the Strong Receive What They Can?" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Do the Strong Receive What They Can?Explaining the Allocation of Environmental Aid
Chris
Marcoux
The College of William and
Mary
Christian Peratsakis
University of TexasSlide2Slide3
Augmenting Available DataImproving the
breadth
of coverage
Adding multilateral and bilateral donors not reporting to OECD DAC
Moving beyond ODA by including other types of aid flows
Adding additional years of data for existing donors (e.g. IDA)
Improving the
depth of coverage
Adding more detail for existing project records
Documents
Descriptions
Co-financiersSlide4
Getting the Data
OECD CRS
Donor Documents: Annual Reports, Project Factsheets
Historical Data
Often not digitized
Webscraping
: Online donor data
Reliable; Quick; Automatically updated
New information captured readily
Direct from Donors: Phone; Email; Site Visits
Official; Primary source
Difficulties of winning donor cooperationSlide5
Total Development Flows in
AidData
by Year
Millions (2000 USD)Slide6
List of FieldsBlue = New in AidData
AidData 1.0 has 67 variables:
Donor Project ID
Donor Code/Name
Beneficiary
Location
Recipient Code/Name
Source
Source Detail
Source TypeContacts/Role of ContactFinancing AgencyImplementing AgencyOther OrganizationCommitment Date (not available in online version of CRS)End DateStart DateYearCommitment Original CurrencyDisbursement Original CurrencyTotal CostCommitment ConstantCommitment CurrentFlow CodeGrace PeriodGrant ElementInterest Rate
Investment Marker
Date of first/last repayment
Number of repayments per year
Type of repayment
Status
Tied Aid, Partially Tied Aid, Untied Aid
Description (long)
Description, original language
Short description
Title
Title, original language
Biodiversity Marker
Climate Change Marker
CRS Purpose Code/Name (partially new, we imputed values for the data we added)
Environmental Impact Assessment Marker
Freestanding Technical Cooperation
Gender Equality Marker
PDGG Marker
Sector Name/Code
Sector
Programme
Aid
AidData Activity Codes/Descriptions
AidData Dominant Sector Code/Name
AidData Feasibility Study Marker
AidData Technical Assistance Marker
NotesSlide7
Aid From Recipient PerspectivesWhen Small Donors Matter:Small donors can still have a big impact in specific countries
Example: Mauritania in 2007
Existing sources of data misses 61% of the flows Mauritania received.Slide8
Composition of Flows to Africa
0%=All Aid from Traditional Donors
100%=All Aid from
Non-Traditional DonorsSlide9
Explaining the Allocation of Environmental AidAnnual reports and websites of donor agencies emphasize the high levels of environmental degradation experienced by recipient countries
.
Recipient governments complain of donor-dominated environmental agendas that focus on regional and global threats and neglect development (as well as local environmental needs).
Who is right?Slide10
Categorizing Environmental Assistance5-point ordinal scaleEnvironmental, Strictly Defined (ESD)
Environmental, Broadly Defined (EBD)
Neutral (N)
Dirty, Broadly Defined (DBD)
Dirty, Strictly Defined (DSD)Slide11
Categorizing Environmental BenefitAll environmentally friendly projects (ESD or EBD) are further coded by scope:
Green Global or Regional Environmental Problems
ex: climate,
ozone depletion,
biodiversity
Brown Local / National Environmental Problems
ex: drinking water treatment
, soil erosionSlide12
Tracking Environmental AidSlide13
Environmental Aid & AdditionalitySlide14
Green|Brown Aid & AdditionalitySlide15
Green|Brown Aid & AdditionalitySlide16
Environmental Aid: Bilateral & MultilateralSlide17
Environmental Aid Type: Bilateral DonorsSlide18
Environmental Aid Type: Multilateral DonorsSlide19
Top Recipients of Environmental Aid
1980s ($5.08)
1990s ($2.80)
2000s ($2.26)
1. Brazil
$134.97
1. China $2.09
1. China $2.78
2. Egypt $9.50
2. Brazil $5.402. India $2.923. India $5.363. India $2.573. Russia $0.644. Philippines $1.214. Philippines $1.434. Vietnam $2.755. Indonesia $1.505. Mexico $10.175. Brazil $3.816. Korea $195.366. Indonesia $1.866. Morocco $4.837. Bangladesh $0.437. Egypt $5.897. Indonesia $1.228. Turkey $142.348. Argentina $11.258. Mexico $4.889. Algeria n/a9. Turkey $10.85
9. Iraq $113.02
10. Mexico $6158.76
10. Thailand $4.83
10. Bangladesh $2.01Slide20
Namibia Aid PortfolioSlide21
Namibia Aid Portfolio (cont’d)Slide22
Next StepsDevelop and test a model of environmental aid allocation that accounts for recipients’ interests and power.
Since
these may vary by issue, I focus on environmental transfers related to biological diversity – one of the two major treaties negotiated at UNCED.
Examine how much aid is given under the umbrella of MEAs
(
financial transfers) and assess success of financial transfers in building capacity
(completeness of
nat’l
reporting)Slide23Slide24
“Greening Aid” allocation model
Ecofunctionalism
Aid correlates with environmental significance of recipients
Donors will target recipients with poor environmental quality
Institutionalism
Donors will target recipients based on revealed preferences
Donors will favor governments that provide credible/verifiable information about environmental performance
Realpolitik
“Loyal” recipients will receive more aid
Donors will disproportionately favor large recipients
LiberalismDonors will favor trading partners